5.  The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Krasnoyarsk in the Russian Federation.
6.  The applicant arrived in the Republic of Latvia as a member of the ex-USSR armed forces located in the territory of Latvia. On an unspecified date in the beginning of the 1990s he and Ms B., a Latvian citizen, started living together in de facto partnership. In 1993 a child was born to the applicant and his partner.
7.  After the military forces were withdrawn from Latvia, the applicant resided there between 11 June 1993 and 31 March 1994 on the basis of a temporary residence permit. On 31 March 1994, upon the expiry of the residence permit, he left Latvia.
8.  Between 1994 and 1997 the applicant visited Latvia three times on the basis of a visa. The validity of the last visa expired on 17 November 1997 but the applicant continued to reside in Latvia illegally.
9.  On 19 February 1998 the applicant was apprehended by the police and taken into custody on suspicion of having committed robbery and criminal proceedings were initiated against him and seven co-accused persons.
10.  On 20 February 1998 the applicant was brought before a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga who decided to detain him on remand. The judge filled in a standard form by typing in the date, the names of the court and the applicant and other details of the case. In substantiating the decision, the judge had to choose from and underline the pre-typed text of the standard form. She took into account the severity of the crime the applicant was suspected of, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. However, the judge did not underline the pre-typed text as to whether or not a preventive measure should be imposed on the applicant. He did not appeal this decision.
11.  On 17 March 1998 the applicant was officially charged with robbery.
12.  On 9 April, 11 June, 10 August and 13 October 1998 a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga, on the request of the prosecutor in charge of investigation, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 19 June, 19 August, 19 October and 12 December 1998 respectively. The applicant was not brought before the judge. The decisions were drafted using a standard form and repeated from one decision to the next the same grounds in the same words, i.e. the severity of the crime the applicant was charged with, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. The applicant did not appeal any of these decisions.
13.  On 30 October 1998 the prosecutor in charge of investigation and the applicant discussed the possibility of releasing him on bail.
14.  On 25 November 1998, according to the prosecutor's permission, the applicant and his partner met in order to discuss the details of the applicant's release on bail without reaching any agreement in this respect.
15.  On 10 December 1998, 11 January, 29 January, 20 February and 19 March 1999 a judge of the Ziemeļu District Court of the City of Riga, on the request of the prosecutor in charge of investigation, extended the applicant's detention on remand until 12 January, 29 January, 20 February, 20 March and 20 April 1999 respectively. The applicant was not brought before the judge. The decisions were drafted using a standard form and repeated, from one decision, the same grounds and in the same words, i.e. the severity of the crime the applicant was charged with, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation. The applicant did not appeal any of these decisions.
16.  On 21 April 1999 the applicant was given access to the case file in order to take cognisance of its contents, which he completed on 29 October 1999.
17.  On 7 August 2000 the last of the co-accused persons completed the reading of the case file.
18.  On 23 August 2000 the investigating prosecutor N. informed all accused persons that the examination of the case file had been completed. The prosecutor, considering the fact that the applicant resided in Latvia illegally, the danger of his possible absconding and the possibility that he could impede the investigation, refused the applicant's request to alter the preventive measure imposed on him. The applicant did not appeal this decision. On the same day the final indictment, drafted by the prosecutor N., was presented to the applicant.
19.  On an unspecified date the case was transmitted to the Riga Regional Court for adjudication.
20.  During the preliminary investigation the applicant asked the prosecutor in charge of investigation for permission to correspond with his relatives; these requests, using a standard form, were refused as being contrary to the interests of investigation.
21.  On 1 February 1999 the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to meet his partner. His request was refused on 8 February 1999.
22.  On 27 June 1999 the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to exchange correspondence with his parents, who were living in Russia.
23.  On 5 July 1999 the prosecutor informed the applicant that he was not allowed to meet his partner or to exchange correspondence with his parents.
24.  On 22 July 1999 the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to exchange correspondence with his relatives and to meet his partner and their child. These requests were refused on 2 August 1999.
25.  On 10 August 2000 the applicant asked the prosecutor for permission to exchange correspondence with his mother and his partner.
26.  On 16 August 2000 the prosecutor allowed the applicant to exchange correspondence with his mother.
27.  On 13 September 2000 a judge of the Riga Regional Court allowed the applicant to exchange correspondence with his partner.
28.  The applicant spent the whole period of detention from 19 February 1998 to 19 August 2002 in a remand prison. According to the Instruction on the Procedure of Keeping Suspected, Accused, Detained and Sentenced Persons in Remand Prisons (hereinafter referred to as “the Instruction”), approved by the Minister of the Interior, and Transitional Provisions on the Procedure of Keeping Suspected, Accused, Detained and Sentenced Persons in Remand Prisons (hereinafter referred to as “the Transitional Provisions”), approved by the Minister of Justice, long-term family visits were prohibited in remand prisons.
29.  On 4 September 2000 the Riga Regional Court received the case file.
30.  On 7 September 2000 a judge of the Riga Regional Court committed the applicant for trial and scheduled the hearing for 13 May – 10 June 2002. The applicant was not summoned. The judge decided to continue his detention on remand without giving reasons. The decision was not subject to appeal.
31.  On 4 November 2000 the applicant asked the Riga Regional Court to schedule a separate court hearing in order to determine the date of trial and to reconsider the preventive measure imposed on him.
32.  On 20 November 2000 a judge of the Riga Regional Court replied that the trial date had not been set.
33.  On unspecified dates the applicant complained to the President of the Riga Regional Court and the Ministry of Justice that his right to trial within a reasonable time had been infringed. On 5 December 2000 the Ministry of Justice notified the applicant that the trial date had not been scheduled.
34.  On 28 November 2000 the applicant asked the Riga Regional Court to hold a hearing in his case within a reasonable time. On 8 January 2001 the applicant repeated this request.
35.  On 29 January 2001 a judge of the Riga Regional Court replied that the trial date had not been set.
36.  On 26 February 2001 the applicant announced a hunger strike to protest against the lack of progress in the proceedings.
37.  On 2 March 2001 the Riga Regional Court informed him that the hearing had been scheduled for May 2001 and he discontinued the hunger strike.
38.  On 13 March 2001 the Riga Regional Court informed the applicant that the trial had been scheduled for 13 May – 1 July 2002.
39.  On 15 March 2001, in reply to the applicant's earlier complaint, the Ministry of Justice informed him that the hearing had been set for 13 May – 1 July 2002.
40.  On 27 March 2001 the Riga Regional Court confirmed that the trial date had been scheduled for 13 May – 1 July 2002.
41.  On 5 April 2001 the Ministry of Justice confirmed that the trial dates were set for 13 May – 1 July 2002 and not May 2001 as erroneously stated by the Riga Regional Court in its letter of 2 March 2001. The applicant was also informed that, due to the court's case load, it was not possible to begin the trial within the time limit provided for in Article 241 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
42.  On 11 April 2001, on the applicant's request of 2 April 2001 to alter his detention on remand, a judge of Riga Regional Court informed him that he had been committed for trial and that there was no reason to alter the preventive measure imposed on him.
43.  On 13 May 2002 the Riga Regional court commenced adjudication of the applicant's case.
44.  On 16 and 20 May 2002 the Riga Regional court adjourned the hearing as several witnesses did not appear. The court ordered the police to ensure the appearance of these witnesses under constraint.
45.  On 11 June 2002 the Riga Regional Court found the applicant guilty of robbery and unlawful ammunition storage. The prosecuting authorities were represented by the prosecutor N. and his colleague. The court sentenced him to four years and six months' imprisonment and, according to Article 24 2 of the Criminal Code, ordered his deportation from Latvia after having served the sentence. The applicant appealed this judgment.
46.  On 21 November 2002 the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court acquitted the applicant of the charge of unlawful ammunition storage and quashed the first instance court's sentence in regard to his deportation, upholding the remainder of the first instance court's judgment. The prosecutor N. represented the prosecuting authorities together with his colleague. The applicant did not file an appeal on points of law and thus the judgment became final.
47.  On 29 July 2002 the Citizenship and Migration Authority (hereinafter referred to as the “CMA”) took a decision on forced expulsion of the applicant, stating that the applicant, a Russian national, arrived in Latvia on 20 August 1997 on the basis of a visa. It observed that the Riga Regional Court convicted the applicant on 11 June 2002 and ordered his expulsion from Latvia, according to Article 242 of the Criminal Code. The CMA noted that the applicant would be released on 19 August 2002 and decided, in accordance with Article 242 of the Criminal Code, to expel him from the territory of Latvia to the Russian Federation. There was no date indicated in the decision as to when the expulsion should take place. When the applicant took cognisance of this decision, he wrote next to his signature that he objected to his expulsion as he had a family in Latvia.
48.  On 19 August 2002 the applicant was released from prison, the time he had spent in detention on remand counting as part of the sentence. On the same date he was transferred to the Detention Center for Illegal Immigrants and thereafter detained at the Center pending his deportation to the Russian Federation.
49.  On 29 August 2002 the applicant appealed against the decision of the CMA to the Central District Court of the City of Riga. The court received the appeal on the same day.
50.  On the same day the applicant was deported to the Russian Federation.
51.  On 3 September a judge of the Central District Court of the City of Riga examined the applicant's appeal of 29 August 2002 and, as it was written in Russian, allowed the applicant until 30 September 2002 to rectify this procedural deficiency.
52.  On 3 October 2002 the proceedings were terminated as neither the applicant nor his lawyer pursued the complaint.
53.  On 4 September 2003 the applicant and his partner married in Krasnoyarsk in the Russian Federation.